.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 22 Feb 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: UTF8 APIs

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Complex Rune enumeration over spans of UTF-16 and UTF-8 text https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/34826#issuecomment-466507394

A

All righty, so yeah did I hit that last, so I can leave home and be there in time for yeah.

B

It'll be lost, okay, perfect. We can stall. Oh okay, just tell me offline hello, son, oh okay, so this are we probably like yeah? We aren't so. This API was previously approved great. However, when this was approved, you see how some of the API is used. Charite, in addition to charm, like that decode first were in decode from n stuck out that yeah we don't have Tori yep. So if you scroll all the way to the very bottom, there is an open question which is okay. So, let's assume that we want to take.

B

We don't expand effect because we don't loose mandatory at the moment off the table. What do we call the method?

B

um I had proposed decode, utf-8 and decode you TFA from end, because the approved api's wordy code and decode from end and putting utf-8 in the method name says: I am going to interpret this span of byte as utf-8 in the future. If we wanted to decode a span of byte as u TF, 7 or whatever weird reason or you TF lorg, then we would have a decode. You TF more method which would have any exact same signature, otherwise,.

C

What do you think it would be unlikely to the point where, if we ever have to do this, we just introduced the Lisp methods, because you tf7 and.

B

Just leave that as decode, we don't have any other api's anywhere else in the framework where we take, we don't expand the bytes and treat it as utf-8 without utf-8 and the title of the method name, I thought the general practice was to be named the parameter, the beauty of a textbook.

C

B

Haven't done that anywhere, all of the places where we take read-only satified as utf-8 thereon types like utf-8 reader, utf-8, parser, the utf-8 jsonparser or utf-8 Jason Luther. There.

D

Was also places where we explicitly named the parameter utf-8, something.

B

There there are, but we always do that in addition to put in utf-8 somewhere in the type of method, and they.

C

Think and general key with the method name or the type name. It's just. It seems in this case somewhat unfortunate, because all the other ones are just overload yeah. Well, that's why this was originally dependent on Tory. Should we do just make this consistent with the rest at least awesome?

C

So then, then we call them all decode UTA.

C

E

He called utf-16.

C

Indica beauty, okay, because there is that is consistent, I got about. It seems very unfortunate that you have something that a quote decode and they are implicitly either won't either of them and then there's one that is explicitly utf-8. We could.

B

Generally, we don't force UTF encodings in people's faces when they're using tor, like we don't force people to realize that sequences of char or utf-16 it's just yeah, we should maybe we should like. Maybe the category of user who's going to use this API is, is cognizant of that bomb it to needs more about the like. We assume exclusively sixteen right. If it's a read only span of torch I mean it's not required to be, but if you fabricated, a read, almost nano char that paint.

E

B

That's not you to get sick. It's looking at Centralia and.

C

There's no other type of can put them on or they don't know you thi very pretty just with them and make it implicit there and.

B

We could we could put these on a utf-8. Oh absolutely, they don't have to live here.

B

We already approved a utf-8 I previously I.

C

Guess that is another problem is now you have their own things. Quite a positive light switch, but we have no, you have dick well, we would. We would remove this and put it on to a different type of yeah.

F

Only the other idea is to have like a Nam even like what, including using by recalling Amazonia.

B

To introduce anyone or introduce me, okay, yeah, and it's like.

F

Literally, taking them coding and I think I'm not holding.

D

A thing you couldn't at.

F

Least, like anomaly, saying, like you know, beautiful in TV, that's not a bad idea. We could uh we.

B

Could just throw it yeah, it.

F

Wasn't yet the answer.

F

And by doing that, we don't have to name every message with including.

B

Writing well, the char one clearly wouldn't take any coding. You know right, it would just be like we can tell from the signature cheese. Yes right right.

B

At that point, I would probably want to call it me provide some incentive just decode.

E

E

B

Well, I hope this is wrong.

C

Maybe that was a bit too strong right, I think we have never ever reviewed the maybe I. Haven't somebody planned it only a few minutes in a few minutes we have. It was a mistake.

E

C

Yeah, so to me, like I, think I don't have time preferences on method, name versus whatever deck. The only thing that I don't like is that, based on the input type you you sometimes have overload, sometimes you have method names like that.

C

That seems unfortunate, so, like whatever we do, I would just prefer the mere consistent with the other ones, and personally I could live with the fact that we just call it decode, and then we just have we'd only spend off-white and we call the parameter UT a text like because I mean everything else seems rather unlikely right. I mean I, understand that there's a it's not ideal, but it's like didn't.

B

So let me explain how that will break the location it would. It would prevent us from adding D code of read only span of trade in the future. The reason that would prevent us is because the proposal for utf-8 string is implicitly convertible to both read, only stand up, fight and read almost an interpreter, which means that if you were to pass a utf-8 term in here, you get compiler error, because it's an ambiguous overload been.

D

Less better better, it says that it defaults to the Tuareg. It's not a thing. We can do.

C

Yeah, don't hold your breath like that one we're doing way better better. This well.

D

So so, given that it would be a new language feature, you didn't have, you didn't have string literals before yeah and therefore you could never have been in the scenario before where it would have had to have picked one versus the other? Oh you absolutely. Can you don't have string literals, no.

B

D

Given that we knew that the scenario only comes up when you do declare a string literals and they didn't exist before the compiler at that point- could say that if you have a string literal in those two, then it perform refers this one over this one.

B

No, that's in the scenario I'm thinking of, as you have a local literally typed is utf-8 string, and now you pass it in here as a parameter relying on the impulse control and now we call sight will fail.

D

And that's because the compiler or we in the framework will say that it's implicitly convertible to both the.

B

Actual type has implicit conversion operators, at least in her proposal. Well,.

C

I mean that I mean we could decide not to visit renowned language for doing that and do this have explicit conversion methods.

D

No, we could do that yeah yeah. If you made it explicit and then said that the language would support the implicit conversion, assuming that they were going to do that, then you could avoid the overload resolution problem and we could then default to the utf-8 char, which is probably the better overload in the long term anyway. Yeah.

C

I'm curious like what the language is doing that confidence, because you could have the lower-level compiler on a moving older version of c-sharp using the later API. So the question is that I guess if there is no implicit conversion and generally speaking like if you make some reason that is ambiguous, not ambiguous, that's not a breaking change, but the questions. Can you create cases where both would compile but two different outputs?

C

But if we have no implicit conversions and that's hard to imagine, we could yeah. We could also remove the impossibility.

D

C

D

Also think that if you were to do it, then having explicit conversion to bite but implicit conversion to UTF HR would be the way to go, because.

E

That would be similar.

D

To char and you short, which some people do themselves explicitly and interrupt, but.

C

It is one of the reasons why I'm generally not a fan of the proposal from the language team to do all these problems. Our target typing, because target typing by definition, puts you in the spot that it will never work for existing overloads, like the new tab, will never be more specific than the old side, and that is very unfortunate because in many cases you want actually the new thing to be more specific and then you're, basically screwed, and you have to do something that what we do here is not what we want.

B

So another option is: we could simply uh approve these very particular api's. The only consumer I have for them right now is the web encoder stuff, which could rely on them as an internal implementation detail so which ones would you an improve their utf-8 ones? These are the ones that work on the written word stratified, yeah,.

C

It was where that question came in just wait until we decide what to do. If you thr.

B

Yeah we again it would. It would mean that we would have to throw a bunch of code into the shirt library instead of just relying on something exposures, I suppose from system one time. So what's the.

D

Problem- and you could just say we can't get into it right now, but what's wrong with exposing chart eight in the framework as an opaque type with no operators, so the the compiler can in the future when it when it does support it, expose check and uncheck versions without having to worry about back yeah.

C

That was suggested at the last will be you and Chantelle I. Think yeah I think the general problem is similar to what we discussed yesterday memory. Can we talk to the the language folks about async link, I, understand the general desire to say: if you want to do language work, we should do it at the same time. We do the API ever because you don't want to honor yourself in the mode where you ship something and then you know no way.

C

I can do the language work that you wanted, because as soon as you ship, the tribe, you want any sort of semantics that are beyond what you shipped that's fine, but if it's conflicts about your ship, then I'm screwed and it's very hard to know what will conflict and really go through the motions of designing it and that's why I think the John idea is that we can decide to ship it with our.

C

But we need at least go to the motion of designing it, but we can't really be an out basically save time and not designing you.

D

C

I think I think that's one of the reasons why I think we need to look at you th are they? The only problem. Is that I, it's the same problem of many other things. I have a hard time to viewing YouTube HR about YouTube, YouTube eight-string. The thing these tribes also have to kind of like work together right and so same thing.

C

There you kind of want to design both and then maybe we decide only two should want at the time, but you need to basically have a design that says well, if you were just ship it and if you were to do the language work all this. This whole thing work and you know in tandem and Co, can be stages about breaking changes and I. Think that's that's you know they just haven't done the work, that's what we can kind of say like it's, but something we can do targeted right.

C

We would have to do the whole thing. It is design life. So then the fix for this will be. We only have the charm on then yeah and then the other one would be what internal very effectively yeah, because.

B

It would be like I have consumers for this, but the consumers are in horror, films, yeah, the.

C

Nobody else depends on wound up stack, mine, 18, they didn't depend on them, and so they know it's.

B

Here it's it's really only used by components of the order, tax processing and that's not really.

C

I'm curious what Miguel think of this, because if you don't have any way to do to utf-8 that you put argue kind of defeats the point but I guess you can just say later. Yeah.

E

Okay, so then let me try to summarize what we just said.

C

My task lies quickly, be broken, I have like 12 programs running and according to my task, but I only have two programs. I can find anything with Oscar, not helpful.

E

E

Is we either one.

E

E

C

Yeah is there any strong feeling or not I mean I think we briefly talked about this, but what, if we just prove subjects them all.

B

You have 16 year together, yeah again that would work and if I I know I know Miguel's not here and I can't speak for him, but he has previously made statements where he expects that that people using API is along. These lines do have some kind of understanding about ETF and coatings and probably would not be tripped up by us having those suffixes I.

D

Think yeah, my only concern with the suffixes is that if we do them here before, we have utf-8 charge, then we're going to need to continue doing that after we have utf-8 charge for consistency. Oh and I would.

C

Say that on that type es I mean, if we add overloads to the code or well a code from and then I would continue doing that, but I think it's okay to say once you have a type it's similar to how we do it with optional parameters, right that we haven't gone back in time and added all that we move to overload in favor of option arguments exactly. But if it just said it's good, like we just say on an existing Tibor being used overloads, we keep using overloads and our new types we use optional.

C

If we can rightly just nice, you just try to get a point where you exploit the new things, but you also like what I don't like about this current proposal of not exposing utf-8. It seems like just because we have a minor an issue in the API service. We just don't give you a feature. I think that it's kind of like steering too far like if the only if the, if the fix is dis, just suffix them all of the difficult system prefix. But then you can at least do everything.

C

Then they'd only have a better type so that we can do overloads about the suffix great, but like that's not what the whole feature work about. That seems a bit over the top I.

D

Would think that for consistency across the entire, like ecosystem, that even in these types, it would be better just to name the parameter name. So it's clear that it's utf-8 rather than trying to say or api's before we had UTF HR, we Adam we have a prefix or suffix and then after we have it, I think I think having the parameter name and the method names be consistent, consistent with no suffix sure overall yeah.

C

I guess we all ever come together is that I don't think we create like that doing the suffixes that don't I, don't think we become straining ourselves in the future at all. I'm saying is that I think we can? There may be cases where we can have better API. So maybe in some cases we decide against that for consistency, but that's I, don't think either way, I don't think it's a big deal so I'm actually talking on that real fast.

B

Should we quickly change the parameter name from source to utf-16 source on the troll, otherwise yeah I'm, fully with them yeah I.

D

B

That I think that.

D

Would make clothes.

B

D

B

Way it's if you're, looking at the parameter names like it's explicitly clear. This is how we're going to interpret the data not as ucs-2 but is utf-16, because as much as we say, strings or utf-16 in people still use you soon.

C

Isn't let me then, make sure that I get.

C

Would say we would have behold sixteen, you would have died, cold, utf-8, decode from n2, utf-16, I guess, I would probably close from and at the end it would say decode utf-16 from engine he could UTA age from.

B

Yeah that way, decode UT of whatever all clustered together, yeah and.

C

Then we said we would call source utf-16 source.

B

Yeah, regardless of whether we change the method name changing the parameter name is probably the most, especially since we're very explicitly putting in your face with these api's that we're talking about UTF, encodings and.

C

Then we still have the same syntax that I'll rule out in trust, consumed correct.

C

B

What I did I think I've convinced myself to put it in the bathroom, because we do explicitly want to put in your face we're talking about you to young ones, all right.

C

Okay, let me just copy paste this right here then I can find my car again.

F

F

F

G

G

All right, then, look lie to.

B

Everybody, so that is the new approved surface yeah okay, I mean if.

G

You agree with what I've written you the disagreement is you have eight orders below.

D

D

We haven't up for grabs, approved API. To add the add the alphanumeric sword thanks, but no one's in come into the end. So.

B

This one, if the look so if the last one was estimated three minutes and took three if this one was estimated at 15, so it should take two and a half dollars a leg.

C

You opportunism I think they could probably do better than that, but just out of zero.

B

The general idea behind this is this is more complex enumeration over textual data, so we previously approved enumerate words and enumerate rooms. Does silent substitution of the replacement character function mark within a black diamond? If it sees invalid data? The this enumeration explicitly tells you I found something invalid and I. I did a substitution.

B

This is used primarily if you're enumerating and you need to know that an error occurred so that you can abort or do whatever the. If everything is for your scenario, this particular API is also computed, something that I'm that Miguel was pushing for in terms of syntax, not necessarily the API shape.

B

I have an example, one or two screens down that shows how this looks against when you compare it against account, so there, the first snippet there is the tutorial at golang.org for how to enumerate their rooms over strings, and these second is basically that exact same sample using these 89.

C

But this is a four loop that gives you the index and the room. Vegas is basically giving you a couple for each item in that yeah. So it's so it's giving.

B

You back a proper struct and the struct has a decomposed function, though. I think that in the theme of north yeah, this is based on feedback. I was previously given what I brought an earlier version of this 81.

C

I'm not a fan of / that does look more concise in here. Let's look better than what.

E

Yeah actually, anyway, but.

B

What what's in, are you able to use this? So the scenario for this is not necess I, don't really expect new code to be written on top of these ap is the scenario for this is making it easier to port existing code over from go to c-sharp using our API service. If that's the case, index in room should be probably swapped, yeah um I I would argue that go probably could have been correctly here. Yeah.

D

I would agree, but but if the goal here is for ease of porting yeah, then.

B

Yeah because we have another, we have an overload of decompose which just returns we're in value, because that's what most people care about right and it. It seems strange to put that after any more expanse or any composition, yeah.

D

The concern would be if it's for ease of portability they just using bar someone, would easily do start index R in value and started next would be the room and explicitly typing it rather than Barwood, but of course caps at. But my.

C

Understanding is that I mean you said you don't expect new code to be written like this, but I would think that things like the vs editor or you know, terminal window that basically provides a text. Editor would do the exact same thing right. That's that's literally what you want to do when you want to edit or.

B

If you're implementing an editor- yes, you could, the API that we had just approved can also be used for the same scenario. Yeah well.

C

I mean I think this one would be at when you when you bite it on the screen, like you want to know where the.

B

Thing came from so this if you're talking about display like inside of inside of word, for instance,.

F

B

Is not really going to yeah I. uh The reason for that is when you start considering things like how characters start getting composed on top of each other, with names like accents, for instance, I, think it's ligatures yeah. This is not necessarily going to assist you when what Unicode has a concept on is what a lot of people just call Bracken's, which are sequences of characters. That then displayed look like a single thing.

B

It will be full rooms, but they happen to be two on top of each other. It would be motive would be multiple rooms. All back-to-back the example that most people are familiar with is a emoji, for instance, yeah.

B

Imagine something like so there's an emoji for or like firefighter there's an emoji for the email symbol and there's an emoji for like a medium skin modifier and those are three separate symbols, so they would get decoded as three separate words, but when you display them, you smash them all together and display a single logical, glyph as a medium skin, female firefighter or a.

D

With a Newmont modifier.

B

Most people just use the actual character, a with whom lot work is still a single room, but yeah they could be decomposed into multiple. If you really want them yeah and we.

D

Have functions on system globalization.

C

As among English native speaker, I would still assert if the world would speak. English will be way better.

C

That we should just change that to something simpler. We should all just speak binary.

B

There would be so much easier, so one of the other things we can do is we could also defer this API until someone's explicitly asking for it was intended to make party easier. So.

C

I, don't have the impression, so what was the new thing here is literally just this type. That gives you the pair back. Basically.

B

Island Intel and tells you if something got the placed under under covers it. Didn't we yeah, but didn't we already improve that API it was approved with if it wasn't approved, it was marked as needs work. If you scroll to the very top there's a link to the old one. Does.

C

It mean this looks very familiar. I guess I mean to be a discussion on that. There should be a topple over that can be custom struck with a deconstructed method um somewhere in here somebody was passive-aggressive.

B

The the name room was still oh, I, know they're.

G

B

Oh yeah, anyway, if you go into the files change, there's at home, that's going to work either.

C

Yes, yeah yeah, yeah yeah, that's that's right! Even at three of them right and length could be you anymore, yeah. That was one of the things where go was not great because it doesn't give you the length here to basically computer yourself right. Don't.

E

Give you the wrong evenings, but.

C

Okay, you basically took this feedback and basically designed the API according to the feedback, if you will suppose that make sense, the real position so I think one question that Christopher Polly ask is: was it or nested type or should have been at the time understood, I ponder on the room like if it's literally only used to enumerate rooms and if you usually be composed my video public time for that I actually talked about this proposal.

B

Down a little bit right there, my friend, yes, so the scroll up, so the enumerator itself is under room, but you'll see that's enough to type under room yep. The position I brought as a top-level type in system text just because I that would make it easier to he's ever to actually have as a local yeah alright clean. If we imagine people would use VAR doesn't matter.

C

Well, you could just hit the top position, but yeah I mean generally not a fan of nested fives I. Just know that that's a good question then well yeah I mean. Is it appropriate to have lots of times yeah, so I think in general, like I, think nested types make sense when you basically never ought, rather than their names right. So, for example, all the structures numerate or if you never, you, never declare anything with that signature. You you you.

B

Either convert it to manual or you just have a for each loop right, the the other downside abuses, if you type room dot these won't. These just be boost. Hype, smash, open, intellisense rise.

D

B

Types- and I would very much like to avoid that, if possible, only.

C

They're going to be doofus practice in a way that don't don't be hide them I thought we were hiding them intellisense I mean if we don't.

D

Further list the numerator first.

B

Maybe we do consider I think was the time to easily do this work, so list of T doesn't have any static a few guys off of it. I believe them.

D

B

There would be no reason for anyone to write list of T dot. Rune, however, has a bunch of static API using you know off of them, so there is reason for people to do. We thought it might.

D

Also, stemming back to the earlier conversation about text, editor just testing out four or five over the mouth, BS code, visual studio, notepad, plus plus notepad. They all don't count email firefighter as a single clip. They counted as three.

B

Because of the zero which order yeah.

D

So so they actually count it as like. If you can step through each individual internal glyph, you know, and it shows you like, moving third of the way through the character and it tells you.

F

Selected to make all the bullet did one care Microsoft.

D

Or that has the option for that yeah. Well, I didn't.

F

Get with was a keyboard. These are you roll like three times. Oh.

D

Well, and if you do things like control over, it actually counts it as a single. It's just like when you're looking at the column, listing and and the number of column selected versus the number of characters selected actually tells you it's three, but.

C

You can actually insert in between right.

D

Yeah you can't insert in between I.

C

Didn't actually get the carrot in between and delete, let's say the the skin.

D

Then it will change it or break it apart. If you come in anymore in facilities, so we append in front of them so having the actual position would be useful for some api's here as well.

C

All right, so let me just look at the what we currently have in the WingMakers.

C

Say enumerator room positions.

C

We have a numerator one position. What's interesting, is this big.

C

And this goes back to the same problem from earlier right.

B

Yep utf-16 UTI theta, it sounds like we actually have a a scenario for a recommendation.

C

From a tall I just think those not really long when I mean already quite long, a vicious quality, numerate positions, that's all wrong when they are young moon. What other producers could you possibly get, but then it's at least not longer than what we have.

C

B

Do you like to perform sitting there.

C

And, to an extent.

C

I mean if this inflammation, that isn't that new sure, just repeating what I already know it becomes tedious.

B

Any of these are hanging off of span, not memory not occurring on anything else. So restaurant, a new owner.

B

If you need to use this across in a weight or something like just use a memory of tea and then whole don't spend effort order.

D

Is copied into it help.

C

Well but I mean how do I go, I guess I can slide, yeah I was about to say whatever you can and you can slice, because you have the most up.

B

By the way, what's the length in its the number of characters, when it's a number.

C

Of coaches, important number number of elements in the stand: oh really, yeah.

B

Also indexes this yeah yeah yeah as an if you call standard slice that indexes the right thing right. There would.

E

C

C

Position, utf8, I, guess.

B

We have some other api's hanging off of Rome that don't that just hatred, almost phantom charm, don't have utf-16 to the day. Maybe we should take a look at those as well. Did you smoke them in the return me I did? Yes, that's just a combination.

C

People moving I'm like what I.

F

Thought I understand this here. What I learned the time.

C

All right so cause now I it up.

E

C

We go we, so let's do this.

C

Just call the negative position numerator as well.

B

Because they're nested in the room, yeah.

B

Oh, the actual type of stoke-on-trent position, though.

B

I can nest the enumerators under root position.

B

Which would also solve the problem of not having them show up in intellisense when you type were in dot.

C

Sure so that means no. That would be room positioned on utf-16, numerator, I. Suppose, yes,.

G

And utf-8 anymore I mean.

G

Rude opposition.

G

C

Is this is not be about on that review, which one begs the question: should the methods be also on a new owner in position?

C

B

Position dot enumerate enumerate from utf-16 new TFA.

C

I would just be completely stripped earth or just enumerated have 16 and you're ready to vape. That also works.

C

Ya know get short like.

B

That you, like short, okay, well,.

C

I, like em, sighs man, you can get away with it.

E

Oh Blake: what is it.

C

Okay, so then those would go in there.

C

They've delivered structs.

B

Yeah because everything's over stand again, because we because we hand the offset back to you, you can always resize any memory that you know. Yeah.

C

Yeah I think there's nothing to review on the action that was the numerator was because they're pretty vanilla.

E

C

All right so then,.

C

You boom position itself, so it's a credible that makes sense to be comparable.

G

I, don't know how you would inherit.

C

B

Yoda that has the same start index as I mean it's equal.

C

I mean I, guess, killed it. It's not right, but I mean wouldn't.

D

You have both the same start index langtang room very.

C

Quality all whole four would have to be equal well for quality for sure, well, yeah. But if you compare them that will be weird, because what would you? What would the value be? Even the started, makes it different than the room is different at the lower part. So you would have to decide that I I don't think it makes sense to sort it used to be almost yeah.

B

C

Or that I comfortable.

B

Doesn't really make sense, you.

F

C

Sort them I'm just selecting dynamics.

F

Called the ruling position, so it give you some positions if.

D

You didn't want to sort, then you could write your own, compare yeah that says so. My start index in the onus is on you to ensure that they're all from the same span. Okay, that's fair.

B

So the there is a difference between what we do and what go. Does the difference is that uh if we encounter invalid data, you go just skips one byte when in its enumeration we might skip more than one bite, depending on how much data was in that one or depending on very particularly why the data was invalid, because we follow to achieve the Unicode recommendation here that his behavior, the framework already has I'm not changing it.

C

Should we offer the constructor gives it was replaced as well.

B

At that point, you may as well just use the entire position, because it's giving you all four qualities.

C

Now you can't over here, you cannot add a you would have to be a basic. You can only have one that keep that gives you four. You cannot have.

B

Two negative three right: you can overlook and as Tanner also suggested, maybe you sweat swap started up saloon and both of us that's okay. So let's go to do.

D

This and if people do ask for a reconstruct that has all forward well, then we should.

C

D

What's up to want to be.

C

D

F

C

We're starting next the woods with sake is no yet starting eggs ruin and then lengths. If.

B

All you cared about was ruining absolutely nothing else, use this simple in your Mario this one. This API is not intended for you.

C

Know I get what I'm saying is that if we make ruin this? The second argument, then, if you deconstruct into three values, it looks very odd because when you have started next, one in the length yeah, it just seems very out of place, like logically I think you won't ruin starting next and if you poured some gold and well, you have to come with a ticket other things as well.

C

Nathan. It's not.

D

I think they make it work. Fine I suggested an analyzer which would say, if you have like, let's say deconstruct method or you're, passing things into a method and the name that you're passing for particular index matches the name of another index. It should be flagged and if we had such an analyzer, that would help catch people for go so.

B

One other thing is that uh in go both the start index and the brand value itself are both typed as int you're. The room is kept as where God isn't, which means, if you try to trick, isn't the compiler will flag up even without an analyzer I wasn't.

C

Understand I give the tithe is that I get it really sucks for start in length, whether you mess them up because they're both ends, but in in this case, even if you swap them I mean nothing, will make sense right. So it's not it's just I mean the only thing I would buy.

C

Is that if you put in lots and ones of code from go it just sucks because they want to keep swapping everything all the time, but I was I mean, given that the syntax is so definite for be the least of your concerns, it's more like if you have to rewrite the entire algorithm, that's much harder than just syntactically.

B

Well sure and the reason length is promoted as a first-class properly on the struct is because, even though room has a length property hanging off of it yeah, it might give you a different value right, because if we replaced it, for instance like the replacement room is ffft which is going to have length 3 or 2 or I'm. Sorry it'll have length 1 or 3, depending of we might give you a different answer, so you can set it to german anybody looking at me right so.

D

B

Concrete scenario is a: we see the bike path when we're numerating data, we replace it with ffft. We change the length on you.

E

B

Yes, I should also be looking at the comments on YouTube to see if anyone is is calling me on my BS.

C

Better than at all,.

C

I, probably should feel bad for that.

C

Not seems there's no combination.

C

C

B

Now are you still on the line nope?

B

He dropped out so.

C

C

Any other feedback on the toilet I see the time, looks fine.

B

By the way this is built, this type is built on top of the decode AP is that we just approved like that. All of these are kind of stacked on top of each other. We start with the basic layer and then build higher and higher layers like this. On top of them right.

B

B

B

Oh, the other question: should this have a public instructor.

B

Don't think so, but I don't know if it's typical that our front cell public instructors any reason.

C

Not to have one I mean you already have that one clearly right, it's just a matter of making the public I, suppose yeah.

F

C

Refer just incoming there's no harm in it, and it's a pure data holder right though yeah.

D

And if someone wanted to create their own enumerator that turned position suddenly good.

B

It's like, maybe they wanted to ask you to sit right or I mean there's, there's no harm in making us man and if we add more properties in the future, we'll just have an overload of the constructor yeah, but.

C

Given that you should is need only like you really hard to imagine that you will do something smart.

B

So the constructor, so the constructor literally, would be these same. These same properties in the same order camel cased, yeah, okay,.

B

F

C

C

Okay, that's it.

C

Perfectly mark this, as let me copy and paste the notes in.

C

Next time, thank you. Thank you. Chewing was happening.

B

Ever hurt you so long, yes, but he might be listening. Okay, it's fine! Oh yes, I'm on a line I I wanted to before we do the encoder stuff to handle the API review that Eric brought up this morning. There was no issue for it because it's so fresh, um but I can show you what it is. Go fast, yep no go to source, don't nothing!

B

Weird! Yeah! It's.

G

In the it's in then meaning check, okay,.

B

What's the type in source not not type rune.

B

And it's called trying.

G

B

Yeah utf-8 bytes, yeah, just type trying code and you'll see both overloads yeah, so try encode is a public approved API, that's already in the represent Li, the one that emits a span of charm and Alps and number of chars written. It's the one directly about this.

B

B

Currently said, trying code has already been approved. This one is currently being used by system text Jason, even though it hasn't been approved and is not exposed in the rough assemblies.

G

But yeah frankly it could be, but if this.

B

System types Jason uses a it has a room implemented yeah here.

B

It's reading them I believe from utf-16 versus.

B

Anyway, so we should consider making this like actually public, we show an honest-to-god public and then maybe we should win in the end. I want to beauty f-16, my encode to you here.

C

Sixteen bytes here.

B

Is that, well they tell you, it doesn't encounter bite it in host guitars.

C

I see this one, which you just trade okay, then get. It will be just trying called the.

B

Utf-16 yeah and Eric just paste it into the team's when they're already on the website, where that is.

C

B

Yeah, so this is used in the adjacent of escaping logic, because in Jason all astral values are escaped as /u my surrogate / helo surrogate. So to unescape it. We need to turn it back into utf-16 and then back into utf-8, and that's where this is being used.

C

All right, so we would have this one I think this looks fine to me, but a matzo learn expert in the pattern with the parameters for one like or.

B

Eating of writing to something yeah, so you take the destination as spam and then you've out the number of things that you learned and then return successful or not like that. That pattern is correct, yeah, but the name of the method is wanting.

G

G

F

D

B

Not enough room in the destination.

D

And presumably if it was bikes that were outside orange.

B

uh You cannot construct a room from an imbalance, Kilauea the room constructor itself with Rome, see if you you, if you use unsafe to construct or unlikely god help you all that self. At that point,.

C

I think we might be doing new in the room we had an hour. You know I own, that one minute: okay, alright, then I say things online and then I will disconnect this tree and I'm gonna find the button in my three hundred browser windows.

C

B